It's hard to tell just by looking at the images whether they are close to pixel perfect (i.e., created by applying some filter, which clearly is copyright violation), or were independently created using a reference (it's not clear to me that say, "side on shot of an elephant" is something covered by copyright, though it's no doubt a big gray area - copyright that is, not the elephant...)
Wouldn't that many differences fall within a caricature?It's directly traced over the top of the original image! Doesn't matter what's changed about it after that point, it's derived from the original through direct copying. It's a "derivative work", so it's legally tainted from that point on. Once that's happened, you've got to fight pretty hard to claw yourself free of the grips of copyright law in order to claim "fair use".
That's a shame, really. Copying a well known painter may be fine for some cases, but doing the same thing for bananas and elephants ... What's the h*** ?
Not according to http://en.wikipedia...._v._Corel_Corp. - in the US, the ruling was that exact photographic copies of public domain art couldn't be copyrighted.
Since the Mona Lisa's physical representation is out of copyright, if you took a photo yourself (flying to Paris and all that) of the painting, you could use it. But for the real accurate 1-to-1 high definition digital images, you'd have to get the museum to remove the ropes, take down the case, unlock the case (in a secure humidity-controlled area so as to not damage the painting), and set up a proper camera rig to take an accurate photo with evenly distributed lighting. Corbis.com secured the rights to most major museums for that purpose, and Corbis.com's photographs are still with copyright, and are Corbis.com's property
and well they should be! Since they had to invest money to get the photographs, they should be allowed to profit - I just wish copyright wasn't so absurdly long.[/quote]Copyright is not there to protect the investments of big business, it's there to encourage creativity. There is no creativity here.
The problem with this is that it means even old public domain materials still end up being controlled by big companies, because most people never are able to get access to the real thing. And when they weren't the ones to ever create the thing in the first place, that seems rather wrong to me.
ETA: It also gets problematic if we say that even direct copies are copyrightable. I mean, if a company makes a film version of an old play that is in the public domain, then I can still use material that's from the original play, but I can't use (without permission) any creative elements that they added.
But if we say that the copyright applies to even their reproduction of the original elements, then it gets problematic. Suppose I saw the film - they could argue that even if my work only includes elements of the original, since I saw the film, I may have still copied their copy, rather than copying from the original copy.
Or getting back to the case of 1-to-1 exact copies, and the on topic case of artists using copyrighted works for templates. So it's illegal if an artist draws a Mona Lisa if he was looking at a copyrighted exact copy, but not if he saw the original himself? How do you test or enforce that?
Not according to http://en.wikipedia...._v._Corel_Corp. - in the US, the ruling was that exact photographic copies of public domain art couldn't be copyrighted.[/quote]
[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1350574954' post='4991452']
Since the Mona Lisa's physical representation is out of copyright, if you took a photo yourself (flying to Paris and all that) of the painting, you could use it. But for the real accurate 1-to-1 high definition digital images, you'd have to get the museum to remove the ropes, take down the case, unlock the case (in a secure humidity-controlled area so as to not damage the painting), and set up a proper camera rig to take an accurate photo with evenly distributed lighting. Corbis.com secured the rights to most major museums for that purpose, and Corbis.com's photographs are still with copyright, and are Corbis.com's property
It doesn't matter how hard or expensive it is to make the copy, the issue is whether there's any creative element, AIUI. And it's not creative at all if it's "real accurate 1-to-1".[/quote]
I didn't imply that copyright is equated to how difficult (in expense or labor). I was merely stating that it is expensive and difficult for individuals to accurately take their own photographs of famous art.
and well they should be! Since they had to invest money to get the photographs, they should be allowed to profit - I just wish copyright wasn't so absurdly long.[/quote]Copyright is not there to protect the investments of big business, it's there to encourage creativity. There is no creativity here.[/quote]
Copyright was not originally there to protect the investments of big business. But that is how it is currently being abused.
Copyright was originally created to protect the public from government monopolies, IIRC, but was rapidly reversed to allow publishers (originally book publishers) to hold on and defend their monopolies.
Never the less, I feel like if the public doesn't have access to, in our example, accurate digital representations of the Mona Lisa (or the Magna Carta documents, or the Rosetta Stone tablets), and a company invests money to make such accurate digital representations available, they should get to benefit financially from it for a period of time before (their specific version of the) digital representations also enter the public domain. It benefits the public, and if they can benefit from it financially beforehand, it motivates more companies to create such accurate digital representations which preserve deteriorating works of historical or artistic importance. But, while the entire copyright duration drags on for way too long, even if original works have a much more reasonable length of 30 years or so, I think such accurate digital reproductions (which should have their own laws, and would help with things like preserving old games and the like) should only last 10 years or so.
The problem with this is that it means even old public domain materials still end up being controlled by big companies, because most people never are able to get access to the real thing. And when they weren't the ones to ever create the thing in the first place, that seems rather wrong to me.[/quote]
I fully agree. But the key here is "because most people never are able to get access to the real thing". We. Cannot. Get. Access. If a company can get access, and their doing so eventually gives me access, it benefits me (the public). As thanks for doing so, I'm fine with them benefiting for a reasonable (another key word) time frame.
I cannot access an accurate digital representation of the Mona Lisa myself. Ten years from now, I still won't be able to access it.
If a company like Corbis.com accesses it and digitizes it, cool. I still probably can't pay whatever Corbis.com is asking... but because of Corbis.com's actions, ten years from now I will be able to access it for free in the public domain (If the copyright length for such digital reproductions was ten years or another reasonable length). I'm fine with giving them ten years of profit at the expense of barring me access to something I couldn't access anyway in return for later giving me access to something I would never have gotten access to ever.
ETA: It also gets problematic if we say that even direct copies are copyrightable. I mean, if a company makes a film version of an old play that is in the public domain, then I can still use material that's from the original play, but I can't use (without permission) any creative elements that they added.
But if we say that the copyright applies to even their reproduction of the original elements, then it gets problematic. Suppose I saw the film - they could argue that even if my work only includes elements of the original, since I saw the film, I may have still copied their copy, rather than copying from the original copy.[/quote]
That's why it needs a different set of rules applied to it. It should be that only obvious and direct copies of the reproduction are derivative. Company A could accurately model Mount Rushmore in 3D, and license that out to anyone interested at a bajillion dollars. Nobody can use Company A's reproduction of Mount Rushmore. Anyone can go make their own reproductions of Mount Rushmore. Company B sees that Company A's reproduction is priced high, and Company B goes and creates it's own reproduction that is almost entirely identical to Company A's, and licenses it at a price that undercuts Company A's. Eventually, Company A's reproduction goes into the public domain, and Company B's still has a year or two left.
This benefits the public greatly (more accurate reproductions enter the public domain and greater quality and quantity, and with greater speed and clearer legal risk and legal safety) and the corporations (more market opportunities, and less legal ambiguity).
Or getting back to the case of 1-to-1 exact copies, and the on topic case of artists using copyrighted works for templates. So it's illegal if an artist draws a Mona Lisa if he was looking at a copyrighted exact copy, but not if he saw the original himself? How do you test or enforce that?[/quote]
That's the obvious 'con': How can the courts tell whether someone is stealing Company A's work, or Company B's work? Or, how can Company A know (and argue in court) if Company B's fake "reproduction" is actually theft of Company A's actual reproduction?
The answer is: The burden of proving theft should exist on the owner of the copyright. Map making companies have been doing this for years! They'd invest alot of money to map out streets and cities and states, so they could sell maps to the public. Unscrupulous companies would then steal the exact same maps, change the graphics, and sell the maps to the public... and get hit by a huge lawsuit as the original Map Maker doesn't argue that they own the rights to the streets of the United States, but show that the maps they created had fake streets hidden in it to watermark their map, and the unscrupulous company accidentally copied the hidden watermark when they copied the rest of the map. 3D models of Mount Rushmore could adjust a few vertices intentionally wrong in a specific pattern. Replicas of the Mona Lisa could use the pixel information to hide a subtle watermark. Musical reproductions could subtly alter the waves of sound. Documents could replace certain words with other equivalent words that weren't in the original document, or in two or three places rephrase entire sentences to equivalent sentences with the same meaning in a different format.
Note: The fake streets issue still has legal issues surrounding it, but if the legal ambiguity is cleared up, this would provide a great way to prove violations of your identical reproduction of a public domain work, while not preventing competitors from creating their own accurate reproductions and licensing or using them.
In needs to be different enough that someone can't accidentally make a mistake and the accident forms your watermark - so it can't just be a single fake street, or a single vertice out of place, or a single spot of static in your sound file - it has to be beyond reasonable doubt of accidental creation.
